A few years ago, it was unlikely anyone would write a paper on public policy and regulation. The field was reasonably well-developed, the issues well-defined, and the consequences of policy alternatives agreed-upon. It was generally agreed that the purpose of government regulation of business was to cure competitive imperfections in the marketplace. Most scholars agreed the regulatory agencies were largely captured by the regulated interests, and there was a comfortable and cooperative relationship between the regulator and the regulated. Most of the agencies were organized on an industry-by-industry basis, i.e., Interstate Commerce Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, and the Federal Communications Commission. The Congressional Acts creating the regulatory agencies were general statements which conferred extremely broad powers to the agencies, and provided little specific policy guidance except to tell the agency to act in the public interest.

It was an unexpected pleasure to be invited to speak before the opening session of the Northeast Agricultural Economics Council. I assume that I am not here on the strength of my earlier writings on “American Triracial Isolates” or “The Increase in Divorce Among Separated Persons as a Factor in Divorce Since 1940”. Clearly it is the perceived significance of shifts in the distribution of population in this decade that brings a demographer — and a noneconomic one at that — to occupy this place on your program.

Bangor, Maine's, claim to fame is its statue of Paul Bunyan and my little Company only sells about 2 percent of New England's electricity. Why, then, our interest in population redistribution in the Northeast. Well, it's because we have a capital budget of $180 million for the next decade and for every family of four we expect, but doesn't materialize, we've shot $10,000 of somebody's money. I’d like to tell you how we go about forecasting. In one approach we start with population and build our forecast block by block. In a second approach we start with national projections and back into regional demography almost as a byproduct.

Since the early 1960's, educators writing in the Journal of Farm Economics and its successor, the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, have recommended three major curricular changes in agricultural economics programs. First, the curricula should be broadened and diversified, that is, offering more choice of electives of a general nature as opposed to more technical required couses [Hess, Kellogg, Sparks, Sledge, Spitze]. Second, more emphasis should be directed in terms of required formal courses in the written and oral communication skills [Kellogg, Koch, Mather, Sledge, Spitze]. Third, in support of broader curricula, an increase in courses in social sciences and humanities should be required [Hess, Koch, Manderscheid, Sparks, Spitze].

During the past fifteen years, many changes have taken place in the curriculum of the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland. Twelve new courses have been added, ten courses dropped and a new non-thesis Master's degree developed since the 1963–64 academic year.

Agricultural economics became a formalized program at the University of New Hampshire fifty one years ago. During the first thirty five years, the program was primarily a traditional agricultural economics program emphasizing farm management, agricultural marketing, agricultural policy and related subjects. However, during the past fifteen years, the program has undergone profound changes and evolved into one which places emphasis on natural resource economics and community development. In this paper, I will discuss the evolution of the agriculture/resource economics at the University of New Hampshire and look at the changes in course offerings, student enrollment, faculty staffing and factors that have been responsible for the changes that have occurred. Then, I will discuss some of the factors that may influence the future trends in the Resource Economics teaching and research program during the next few years.

About 15 years ago a national effort was mounted to provide equal employment opportunity to any person based on the individual's qualifications without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sex, age or national origin. This effort included executive orders which contained guidelines for hiring, promotions, transfers and discharges. The orders specified that additional job opportunities would be made available to persons who had not previously been given adequate opportunities.

The Research Program Steering Committee on Marketing and Competition was created in 1977 by the Northeast Experiment Station Directors. It was one of ten such committees asked to develop a master research program to identify research areas of high priority, coordinate and consolidate current research programs, implement new approaches, and coordinate future research plans. This particular committee was asked to cover research programs in “Marketing and Competition” (RP 6.03). The Master Program, still in the development stage, is an indicative plan. It is designed to indicate needed areas of research and priorities and suggests a mechanism for encouraging the allocation of resources in the indicated directions. The effect on research priorities will depend on how well we did our job, on how seriously the limited number of involved researchers take our suggestions, and on the impact we all have on the allocation of funds and human resources.

Public decision makers generally and especially those in the executive branch of the Federal government are demanding increasing amounts of information on which to base research policy and budget decisions. Zero-based budgeting provides a mechanism for revealing the priorities of an organization in a very specific context. The Congress in more general terms is requesting advice on research priorities. Such developments as (1) the proposed cuts in formula grant funds (e.g., Hatch funds) and increases in competitive grant funds contained in FY 1979 executive budget for the USDA, (2) substantial critical testimony before Congressional committees by spokesmen for groups who believe they are underserved by the Land-Grant system (e.g., low income and minority groups), and (3) a possible tax revolt growing out of the recent California referendum, suggest that these demands for information are likely to increase rather than decrease.

There is increasing evidence that research funding sources are requiring additional assurances that the expenditure of their resources is in the “highest and best use.” Legislative calls for sunset provisions and mandated evaluations plus administrative moves toward grant rather than formula funding emphasize the push for more direct accountability. The objective of this paper is to outline the work of a committee charged with assisting the directors of agricultural research and extension in the nation's land grant universities in their requests for funds for high priority research.

Apple producers in New York's Champlain Valley have traditionally harvested their crop using local and migrant workers, and supplemented this labor force with temporary foreign workers (Jamaicans). In recent years, obtaining certification to use Jamaicans through the U. S. Department of Labor has become increasingly difficult. There has been some concern that the use of foreign workers might be stopped completely. Obtaining skilled migrant crews has also become increasingly difficult, and growers in this area have suggested that the quality and availability of local workers have declined substantially. Thus, Champlain Valley apple growers have been and will be experiencing shifts in the composition and productivity of their harvest labor forces.

As manager of a Production Credit Association field office, I have had the opportunity to observe various management capabilities and operating tendencies of farm operators for the past several years. In this paper I will try to state several of my observations as an agricultural creditor working with farmers on their financial problems and relate these problems to the changing discipline of farm management.

Modern farm management decisions deal with problems concerning the most profitable size and the best combination of enterprises for a given resource base. These decisions determine a farm's operational and/or organizational efficiency. In addition to selecting a new combination of enterprises, farm managers can make decisions on altering and changing their production practices. New methods allow the same products to be produced, but by a different technique. Situations may arise which also change a farm's resource base. A new method of production may enable a farm operator to continue at a desired output level, while decreasing a production input, thereby increasing efficiency of labor, land or capital.

A long-standing problem in agricultural marketing is the question of “optimal” marketing patterns for a seasonally produced crop. When futures markets exist, agricultural economists have often recommended their use to improve marketing decisions, but farmer use of futures as an aid to marketing is not common. This paper considers the potential benefits to upstate New York farmers of hedging using Maine potato futures contracts. Benefits are defined in terms of the mean and variance of returns from alternative marketing strategies for potatoes. A portfolio approach is implicit in the analysis which also relies, in part, on the formulation of a simple price-forecasting model.

There are two basic underlying premises for this paper. The first one is that economics is still a useful discipline. That is, an understanding of economic concepts can contribute to a diagnostic analysis of socio-economic change in the Northeast (among other things), identification of policy options, and even choice. Economic paradigms are versatile and mobile. They help people decide how to deal with all difficult social problems. This assertion is certainly not a foregone conclusion and has in fact been contested rather vigorously. In some circles, clearly those less informed, economics as a discipline has been labeled the villain, the cause for social ills from poor roads to dirty air and water. I would not suggest that all economic advice is good, but that is the fault of the practitioner, not the discipline. Economics, like any other social science, can generate apparent scientific objectivity to support just about any motive of the user. There are virtually no sterile concepts in the discipline. When used to guide choice, all economic principles acquire a normative flavor, inevitably benefiting some interests more than others. Scarcity, the beginning of economics, means interdependence and choice based normative judgments. The challenge for economists as social scientists and particularly as policy analysts is to employ the robustness for the discipline for useful purpose, to provide insights helpful to policy and avoid being intimidated by our own discipline. This leads me to my second premise, that judgments, prescriptions and analyses by economists are probably as good as or better than those offered by anyone else. We owe it to ourselves to be involved.

Past agricultural programs encouraged the withdrawal of cropland from agricultural production. With the removal of crop acreage restrictions and despite the favorable relationships of the 1972–1974 period, all of this land has not been immediately activated into crop production. Some programs encouraged shifts of cropland to pasture, timber production, or to soil improvement uses. Land converted to these alternatives is potentially available for crop production, but whether or at what rate it will be reemployed remains problematic.

Land values have tended to increase at a substantially more rapid rate than the general level of prices in recent years. There is a growing body of evidence that this is occurring due, in part, to factors other than agricultural opportunity costs, size of parcel, improvements and other factors historically related to land values (Bishop, Bryant, Pasour). Some other factors influencing rural land values seem to include urbanization, investment or speculation, and increasing wealth or incomes. Additional information on the determinants of land values is needed if these phenomena are to be more completely understood. This paper reports on a study of the relationships of socio-economic characteristic of land owners (buyers and sellers) and rural land values.

This paper is a scenario of a decentralized land-use planning effort in a small New England community which faced extinction as a result of the construction of a flood control dam and reservoir in 1940. It reports on a study that was specifically designed to take a retrospective look at the social, political, and economic parameters from the pre-relocation period to post relocation. Also, social-psychological impacts were measured through an attitudinal study of the relocated and non-relocated populations of Hill.

I have divided this presentation into two parts, the first is a brief discussion of some of the major factors impacting on the curricula and the second part attempts to relate these factors to a new curricula and the possible future educational roles for Colleges of Agriculture.

Over the past few years there has been a heightened interest in small scale agriculture. Increasing food costs, concern for the quality of food, a concept of self-sufficency, and a reawakening of interest in the positive attributes of rural life are among the reasons for this new attitude. At the national level, the problems of small farms has been explicitly recognized in the 1977 Farm Bill. The following amendments to the Rural Development Act of 1972 were enacted (U.S. Congress, 1977):